Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Pope Francis dedicated a few lines of his 183-page encyclical on the environment
on Thursday to the topic of the failures of banks and markets. In the
Holy Father’s view, “[t]he lessons of the global financial crisis have
not been assimilated” and the governments’ response to the crisis have
only set up the financial system for a future panic:

Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the
price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire
system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a
power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a
slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08
provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to
ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial
practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not
include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the
world.

While praising business as a “noble vocation, directed to producing
wealth and improving our world,” His Holiness called out the financial
sector for having outsized influence over the political process and
endorsed limiting its reach:

[E]conomic powers continue to justify the current global
system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit
of financial gain, which fail to take the context into account, let
alone the effects on human dignity and the natural environment… To
ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,
restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater
resources and financial power.

The pope’s views may be backed by some recent research: On Wednesday
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that curbing certain kinds of bank lending could ameliorate income inequality around the world and increase economic growth.

Is Greece the inevitable template for what's pending across the entire developed world? Do the elderly get thrown to the wolves first because pension obligations have been shown non-binding, and, because there's scant little they can do individually or collectively to resist or stop it? Do they have to go because they're end-of-life yet overwhelmingly greatest percentage of cost when it comes to already beleaguered healthcare systems?

Contrary to your oft-stated demonizing mantras, Islam is unequivocally the best chance you and other pensioners have for some form of relief from predatory banksters who would shed you from the general ledger as the unprofitable and unproductive assets you've become https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking

Because they're not only physically enfeebled, but also socially and psychologically enfeebled by a lifetime of careful, endless, systematic propagandization. They don't see it coming, won't recognize it when it hits, and don't have the rebellious gumption to do anything about it until after its too late.

This is sooo much like the conversation I had with my daughter about glyphosate yesterday. Careful, endless, systematic conditioning by the Big Lie, coupled with some kneejerk reactionary climate-denial type skepticism and disdain for those who are trying to avoid glyphosate, and voila, you can't tell a two-legged piece of livestock a damn thing for its own good that it hasn't - at least partially - figured out on its own.